On October 23, 2013, a non-profit organization filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ...
read more >

On October 23, 2013, a non-profit organization filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate, even with the accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against the organization and other similarly situated religious non-profits.

On January 10, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that the accommodation to the ACA mandate does not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom under RFRA or cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm.

On May 21, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief on the basis that the plaintiffs had shown they were sufficiently likely to succeed on their merits, when considering the Eighth Circuit had twice granted injunctions pending appeal to similarly situated plaintiffs challenging the mandate.

On July 18, 2014, defendants filed notice of appeal to the preliminary injunction.

On September 17, 2015, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's injunctive relief for the plaintiff. The Court accepted the the plaintiff's argument that they will be forced to violate their religious beliefs by complying with either the contraceptive mandate or the accommodation process or to incur severe monetary penalties for refusing to comply. The court argues that the current accommodation process is not the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interests and that the plaintiffs would be substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the mandate and accommodation process substantially burden their exercise of religion in violation of RFRA.

On Nov. 24, 2015, the parties jointly moved to further stay proceedings pending Supreme Court review of related cases. The parties stated that the Supreme Court had recently granted certiorari in seven other cases "raising substantially similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenges to the same regulations that Plaintiffs challenge in this case." The parties further indicated that the government may seek cert. of this decision as well. In addition, the government may decide to seek certiorari of the Eighth Circuit’s September 17, 2015 decision. The court granted the stay on Nov. 30.

The government moved for cert. in the Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2015, which the court granted on May 16, 2016. In that order, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case in light of Zubik v. Burwell, in which the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court rulings in the various consolidated cases. Without ruling on the merits, SCOTUS directed the parties to attempt to resolve their conflict as both sides had indicated mutually beneficial resolutions was possible. On June 17, the Eighth Circuit vacated its judgment and reopened this case.

The case is ongoing, though there has been no substantial activity since June 2016.